Point of Law :
The appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any other reason the order of preference among them; and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it. Provided further that the order of merit or order of preference indicated in a list of selected candidates prepared by the Public Service Commission or other selecting authority, shall not be disturbed inter se with reference to the candidates position in such list or panel while determining the seniority in accordance with this rule and notional dates of commencement of probation to the extent necessary, shall be assigned to the persons concerned, with reference to the order of merit or order of preference assigned to them in the said list

JUDGMENT :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of respondent No. 6 in preparing the tentative allocation list vide Notification No. 604/GAD/SR/2018 dated 28.01.2019 of Junior Stenographers, contrary to Rule 33(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules and in showing respondent No. 7 at serial No. 1 in the seniority amongst the four persons and showing the petitioner at Serial No. 2 as illegal. A consequential direction is sought to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to prepare the seniority list of Junior Stenographers afresh by following Rule 33(b) and as per settled principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court.

2. Heard Mr. Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Rachana S. Waddepalli, learned Standing Counsel for Vaidya Vidhana Parishad for the State of Telangana, Mr. K. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. G. Sai Narayana Rao learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Vaidya Vidhana Parishad for the State of Andhra Pradesh, learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.

3. Mr. Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel, would point out that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Junior Stenographer by direct recruitment by the combined Andhra Pradesh State Public Service Commission in the year 2013 and was allotted to work in the office of respondent No. 4 and that apart from the petitioner, three others, including respondent No. 7 herein, were selected; that in the said recruitment, the petitioner secured 151 marks with 3404 rank, while respondent No. 7 secured 138 marks with 4238 rank:

(i) It is contended by the learned counsel that on account of bifurcation of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the option given by the petitioner, she has to be allotted to the State of Telangana. For allocation of employees to both States, respondent Nos. 2 and 4 prepared a seniority list of direct recruits for the category of Junior Stenographers based on the roster points instead of marks as well as ranks obtained in their initial selection; that in the tentative allocation list, name of respondent No. 7 was placed at Serial No. 1, while the name of the petitioner was at Serial No. 2, based on roster points, and accordingly, respondent No. 7 was tentatively allocated to the State of Telangana, while the petitioner was allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh, which leads to loss of the petitioner's privileged right of allocation to the State of Telangana. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that preparation of the tentative allocation list dated 28.01.2019 by respondent No. 6 is contrary to Rule 33(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘Rules’) as well as the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (5) SCC 604.

(ii) It is also the contention of the petitioner that aggrieved by the said tentative allocation list, she had submitted representations to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 on 22.10.2018 and 24.10.2018 respectively with a request to prepare the tentative allocation list based on the order of merit indicated in the list of selected candidates prepared and sent by the APPSC without disturbing the inter se seniority with reference to the candidates position in such list, and in accordance with Rule 33(b) of the Rules. The petitioner had also submitted objections to respondent No. 3 on 31.01.2019, but no action was taken. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

4. Per contra, it is contended by respondent No. 4 that the seniority list of Junior Stenographers was prepared by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh in the capacity of mother State and lead facilitator as per the list communicated by the APPSC and that the said list was prepared as per the roster points furnished by the AP